[Piuparts-devel] Pending mass bug filing for broken symlinks detected by piuparts

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Samstag, 1. Juni 2013, Dave Steele wrote:
> > btw, I noticed "but logfile contains 'broken symlinks': 16818 passed" on
> > sid-nodoc today which IMO makes this link totally useless...
> Not 'totally'. Looking at the list, the packages look familiar. With
> --fail-on-broken-symlinks, I'd expect the list to on the order of the
> size of my sid list.

displaying 16k broken packages when in reality only 350 are broken is useless, 
sorry.
 
> The resulting dependency-failed-testing list, on the other hand... But
> shouldn't flagging symlinks be part of the purpose of sid-nodoc?

not really, that be sid-picky

> So we need to do something to elevate broken symlinks before the
> discussion. Do we want to invoke #615034, or create a special rule for
> failing /usr/lib broken symlinks?

I'd make piuparts on piuparts.d.o fail for broken symlinks to /usr/lib if/once 
debian-devel@ has agreed on the MBF, not before.
 
> >> > Dangling symlinks pointing to manpages or other documentation
> >> > (provided by a recommded package probably even) are probably just
> >> > "normal" bugs, maybe "important".
> > I'd start with normal for now.
> That's a given.

good! :)
 
> Ok. There will be 82 binary packages, or 66 source packages, on the
> serious list, based on the /usr/lib test.

cool (with me)
 
> Start both threads at the same time?

yup. why not.

> Also, there may be a third case - issues I currently label as
> important. Is that a sub of the second case?

which are those?

> >> ... and if they are resolved by the package which is calling for this
> >> package to be installed, they are no more than 'normal', and so on.
> > 
> > you mean if the broken symlink is provided by a dependend package? I dont
> > think thats a bug at all then.
> 
> No. The target is provided by a reverse dependency, which is the
> normal installation case.

if the missing symlink is "fixed" by a dependent package I don't think there 
is a bug anywhere. thats what depends are for.


cheers,
	Holger


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/piuparts-devel/attachments/20130602/7ad1f949/attachment.pgp>